Religious freedom--No coverage for out-of-wedlock pregnancy

[Rence]

That’s probably next. In their zeal, they’ll probably be sending them to everyone, even little old men.

Their boxes won’t have pills in them, that’s for sure

 

[iloveangels]

Their boxes won’t have pills in them, that’s for sure

Why, Rence, you shock me with your doctrinal approach. That would be gender discrimination!!!

 

[Allegra]

You’re right. But that only works when conscience clauses exist. If there is no contract requiring ‘moral’ behavior, by law a woman cannot be fired for being pregnant and cannot be fired for having sex out of wedlock.

I agree with that too, except the last part. A business still cannot fire a woman, no matter how many sexual partners she has had in her private life…unless there is a conscience clause in her contract, and I don’t know of too many entities that do that aside for a handful of Catholic grammar schools and some Catholic high schools. And hey, I agree with them. They should have those clauses after all they are rolemodels, not just employees. But you don’t see such clauses in entities such as hospitals or universities too often.

However the orginal post did ask an interesting question considering the calls for conscience protection regarding the insurance coverage for ABCs issue. Seriously, could a religious employer deny a pregnant woman health care coverage because she is in conflict with the employer’s religous beliefs? If religious employers can ‘opt out’ of providing coverage for ABCs, and if some can ‘opt out’ of covering blood transfusions as some people claim (which hasn’t proven to be true anyway), hypothetically speaking, the new exemption for the new mandate might make it possible to deny healthcare coverage to a woman who has become pregnant out of wedlock on religious freedom claims.

I agree. We were discussing the specific situation of a woman who works for a parochial school and has signed a conscience clause as part of her contract. Obviously, without such a contract, the employer has no right to fire her.

 

[Leegal]

I don’t think it is normally broken up like that. Either the employer provides maternity coverage or it doesn’t. There are not separate plans for married and unmarried women.

Like I said it is not uncommon for employers to forgo maternity coverage all together for married or unmarried, employees or spouses of employees. So the question is rather moot.

If the company does offer maternity I don’t think I have ever seen an insurance company willing to separate the married from the single. They cover everyone in the same group the same.

This is correct. Further, anti-discrimination laws (both federal and state – states actually regulate insurance) prohibit making distinction based upon marital status. This holds true for who a company offers the insurance to (it’s all or nothing equally), and prohibits discrimination in many areas of daily living.

 

[St_Francis]

All the same, there is still a difference between the government’s forcing employers to pay for people to sin and employers’s paying for the results of sin.